Admittedly, there is a bit of a lie by omission in the statements of ICANN. By agreeing to hand the institution over to an international stage, we are agreeing

Admittedly, there is a bit of a lie by omission in the statements of ICANN. By agreeing to hand the institution over to an international stage, we are agreeing to censor access to small websites or alternate-view websites that don't conform to the standards or views of the corporation in charge of the new ICANN. In effect, we would be blocking access to small websites, limiting freedom of speech over the internet, and possibly in the future having internet access begin to mirror the same level of restrictions that television has. Then, the international corporation would decide what websites you can access, and if the website you want to have a look at doesn't adhere to the corporation's view, it will simply become inaccessible. There is also the question of political relevance; that is, why the urgency? Why require that this be passed during the Obama administration just before an election, and without congressional input? To stop this? See this petition. https://wh.gov/iMbbv https://wh.gov/iMbbv Which routes to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/stop-icann-handover-corporate-interests-which-will-censor-access-small-websites-using-dns-routing-loophole https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/stop-icann-handov... ALSO, an interesting side note: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/4-states-sue-block-obamas-internet-transition-plan http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/4-states-sue-block-...